IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ORDER RE-ESTABLISHING THE § CRIMINAL JUSTICE COUNCIL § OF THE JUDICIARY §
Before STRINE, Chief Justice.
ORDER
On the 19th day of August, 2015:
WHEREAS, few matters of public policy are more important to Delawareans than the
penalties and rehabilitation opportunities that defendants who commit crimes
receive;
WHEREAS, it is impossible as a matter of fiscal reality and our society’s values to
address the public’s need for safety solely by means of lengthy sentences of
incarceration;
WHEREAS, the criminal justice system has a responsibility to attempt to afford
prisoners an opportunity to address substance abuse, mental health,
educational, and vocational problems that may have contributed to their
criminal behavior;
WHEREAS, the criminal justice system has a responsibility to use limited resources
wisely, and to attempt to allocate rehabilitation resources rationally and
equitably, based on sound criteria;
WHEREAS, many offenders receive sentences that permit them to live in the
community, and there are only limited resources available to the Bureau of Community Corrections of the Department of Correction (i.e., “Probation and
Parole”) to provide supervision and services to these offenders in order to
protect the public and attempt to help these offenders avoid committing other
crimes;
WHEREAS, to best protect the public and to reduce recidivism, scarce supervision
resources must also be deployed rationally and equitably, based on sound
criteria relating to the dangerousness of the offender to the public;
WHEREAS, the Judiciary has an important role in determining the allocation of
limited rehabilitation and supervision resources, and should do its best to help
important state and community partners do their jobs effectively and
efficiently;
WHEREAS, in cooperation with these partners, the Judiciary has initiated a variety of
innovative approaches to criminal cases, which attempt to address some of the
fundamental issues that contribute to criminal behavior;
WHEREAS, to that end, the Judiciary has implemented innovations in “problem-
solving” approaches to dealing with offenders with substance abuse problems,
offenders with mental health problems, offenders who are military veterans,
and offenders who were impressed into criminal conduct by sexual
victimization;
WHEREAS, these innovations in problem-solving courts have now gone on for
several years, there is valuable experience from them, and it is timely to
consider their effectiveness and which of them are worth bringing to full scale;
2 to develop consistent, predictable, and measurable statewide standards
governing their operation; and to ensure that problem-solving courts function
in a manner that respects the needs of key agency partners, such as Probation
and Parole, and that uses limited supervision and rehabilitation resources
prudently;
WHEREAS, these problem-solving courts should genuinely be courts, in the sense
that they are an integral part of the courts of Delaware and operate on sensible
and effective standards that do not vary depending on the judge handling the
matter or the county in which the matter is handled;
WHEREAS, because the problem-solving courts address classes of offenders with
similar needs for supervision and rehabilitation regardless of the particular
court – be it the Superior Court or the Court of Common Pleas, by way of
example – our State should endeavor to implement the best approach to, for
example, a “mental health” court, without regard to court jurisdictional lines;
WHEREAS, the utility of collaborating within the Judiciary and with key partners to
make the problem-solving courts more effective is merely one illustration of
the benefits that could flow from more collaboration on key criminal justice
policies within the Judiciary itself;
WHEREAS, this collaboration within the Judiciary and with key partners is also
necessary because of the effect these innovative problem-solving efforts have
on the resources and time key agency partners have to devote to helping
3 supervise and rehabilitate other criminal defendants, and on the Judiciary’s
own resolution of criminal matters not assigned to the problem-solving courts;
WHEREAS, the ability to collaborate on these issues is complicated by the
proliferation of criminal justice bodies charged with overlapping responsibility
to address criminal justice issues (see Exhibit A);
WHEREAS, the sheer number of these bodies makes it difficult for the Judiciary and
other Branches to staff them appropriately and to use limited time to address
key criminal justice issues effectively;
WHEREAS, the sheer number of these bodies also complicates the ability of
appointed members of the Judiciary to consult with their judicial colleagues
and to speak for the Judiciary as a whole when they serve on these bodies;
WHEREAS, this lack of coordination can cause the simultaneous employment of
different approaches to the same criminal justice policy problem, which may
result in similarly situated offenders receiving inequitably different treatment,
and inefficiencies for key agency partners whose budgets and staffs are
limited;
WHEREAS, it is therefore timely to explore the implementation of measures to focus
criminal justice policymaking in a smaller set of key bodies, and to ensure that
the judicial representatives on those bodies are able to consult with their
colleagues and present input that reflects the best thinking of the Judiciary as a
whole;
4 WHEREAS, as with adult offenders, there are limited rehabilitation and supervisory
resources to address youth delinquency, so the Judiciary should make good
faith efforts to work with key partners to make sure these resources are
rationally allocated in an effort to provide juvenile offenders with effective
opportunities for rehabilitation and to protect the public;
WHEREAS, to address all these issues, it is useful to involve judges from the key trial
courts with the front-line responsibility for criminal justice and to have them
play the leading role in addressing these issues;
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2014, the Supreme Court established the Criminal Justice
Council of the Judiciary by Administrative Directive 186 to address the issues
set forth above;
WHEREAS, Administrative Directive 186 was rescinded in connection with the
adoption of the consolidated Operating Procedures for the Delaware Judicial
Branch; and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court wishes to re-establish the Criminal Justice Council of
the Judiciary.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS DIRECTED, with the unanimous approval of the members
of the Supreme Court under Delaware Constitution, Art. IV, 13(1), that:
1. The Criminal Justice Council of the Judiciary is hereby re-established.
2. The membership of the Council shall be as follows:
The Honorable William C. Carpenter, Jr., Chairman The Honorable Jan R. Jurden, Co-Chairwoman
5 The Honorable William L. Chapman, Jr. The Honorable Kenneth S. Clark, Jr. The Honorable Robert B. Coonin The Honorable Carl C. Danberg The Honorable Alicia B. Howard The Honorable Vivian L. Medinilla The Honorable Mardi F. Pyott The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli The Honorable Paula T. Ryan The Honorable Robert H.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ORDER RE-ESTABLISHING THE § CRIMINAL JUSTICE COUNCIL § OF THE JUDICIARY §
Before STRINE, Chief Justice.
ORDER
On the 19th day of August, 2015:
WHEREAS, few matters of public policy are more important to Delawareans than the
penalties and rehabilitation opportunities that defendants who commit crimes
receive;
WHEREAS, it is impossible as a matter of fiscal reality and our society’s values to
address the public’s need for safety solely by means of lengthy sentences of
incarceration;
WHEREAS, the criminal justice system has a responsibility to attempt to afford
prisoners an opportunity to address substance abuse, mental health,
educational, and vocational problems that may have contributed to their
criminal behavior;
WHEREAS, the criminal justice system has a responsibility to use limited resources
wisely, and to attempt to allocate rehabilitation resources rationally and
equitably, based on sound criteria;
WHEREAS, many offenders receive sentences that permit them to live in the
community, and there are only limited resources available to the Bureau of Community Corrections of the Department of Correction (i.e., “Probation and
Parole”) to provide supervision and services to these offenders in order to
protect the public and attempt to help these offenders avoid committing other
crimes;
WHEREAS, to best protect the public and to reduce recidivism, scarce supervision
resources must also be deployed rationally and equitably, based on sound
criteria relating to the dangerousness of the offender to the public;
WHEREAS, the Judiciary has an important role in determining the allocation of
limited rehabilitation and supervision resources, and should do its best to help
important state and community partners do their jobs effectively and
efficiently;
WHEREAS, in cooperation with these partners, the Judiciary has initiated a variety of
innovative approaches to criminal cases, which attempt to address some of the
fundamental issues that contribute to criminal behavior;
WHEREAS, to that end, the Judiciary has implemented innovations in “problem-
solving” approaches to dealing with offenders with substance abuse problems,
offenders with mental health problems, offenders who are military veterans,
and offenders who were impressed into criminal conduct by sexual
victimization;
WHEREAS, these innovations in problem-solving courts have now gone on for
several years, there is valuable experience from them, and it is timely to
consider their effectiveness and which of them are worth bringing to full scale;
2 to develop consistent, predictable, and measurable statewide standards
governing their operation; and to ensure that problem-solving courts function
in a manner that respects the needs of key agency partners, such as Probation
and Parole, and that uses limited supervision and rehabilitation resources
prudently;
WHEREAS, these problem-solving courts should genuinely be courts, in the sense
that they are an integral part of the courts of Delaware and operate on sensible
and effective standards that do not vary depending on the judge handling the
matter or the county in which the matter is handled;
WHEREAS, because the problem-solving courts address classes of offenders with
similar needs for supervision and rehabilitation regardless of the particular
court – be it the Superior Court or the Court of Common Pleas, by way of
example – our State should endeavor to implement the best approach to, for
example, a “mental health” court, without regard to court jurisdictional lines;
WHEREAS, the utility of collaborating within the Judiciary and with key partners to
make the problem-solving courts more effective is merely one illustration of
the benefits that could flow from more collaboration on key criminal justice
policies within the Judiciary itself;
WHEREAS, this collaboration within the Judiciary and with key partners is also
necessary because of the effect these innovative problem-solving efforts have
on the resources and time key agency partners have to devote to helping
3 supervise and rehabilitate other criminal defendants, and on the Judiciary’s
own resolution of criminal matters not assigned to the problem-solving courts;
WHEREAS, the ability to collaborate on these issues is complicated by the
proliferation of criminal justice bodies charged with overlapping responsibility
to address criminal justice issues (see Exhibit A);
WHEREAS, the sheer number of these bodies makes it difficult for the Judiciary and
other Branches to staff them appropriately and to use limited time to address
key criminal justice issues effectively;
WHEREAS, the sheer number of these bodies also complicates the ability of
appointed members of the Judiciary to consult with their judicial colleagues
and to speak for the Judiciary as a whole when they serve on these bodies;
WHEREAS, this lack of coordination can cause the simultaneous employment of
different approaches to the same criminal justice policy problem, which may
result in similarly situated offenders receiving inequitably different treatment,
and inefficiencies for key agency partners whose budgets and staffs are
limited;
WHEREAS, it is therefore timely to explore the implementation of measures to focus
criminal justice policymaking in a smaller set of key bodies, and to ensure that
the judicial representatives on those bodies are able to consult with their
colleagues and present input that reflects the best thinking of the Judiciary as a
whole;
4 WHEREAS, as with adult offenders, there are limited rehabilitation and supervisory
resources to address youth delinquency, so the Judiciary should make good
faith efforts to work with key partners to make sure these resources are
rationally allocated in an effort to provide juvenile offenders with effective
opportunities for rehabilitation and to protect the public;
WHEREAS, to address all these issues, it is useful to involve judges from the key trial
courts with the front-line responsibility for criminal justice and to have them
play the leading role in addressing these issues;
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2014, the Supreme Court established the Criminal Justice
Council of the Judiciary by Administrative Directive 186 to address the issues
set forth above;
WHEREAS, Administrative Directive 186 was rescinded in connection with the
adoption of the consolidated Operating Procedures for the Delaware Judicial
Branch; and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court wishes to re-establish the Criminal Justice Council of
the Judiciary.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS DIRECTED, with the unanimous approval of the members
of the Supreme Court under Delaware Constitution, Art. IV, 13(1), that:
1. The Criminal Justice Council of the Judiciary is hereby re-established.
2. The membership of the Council shall be as follows:
The Honorable William C. Carpenter, Jr., Chairman The Honorable Jan R. Jurden, Co-Chairwoman
5 The Honorable William L. Chapman, Jr. The Honorable Kenneth S. Clark, Jr. The Honorable Robert B. Coonin The Honorable Carl C. Danberg The Honorable Alicia B. Howard The Honorable Vivian L. Medinilla The Honorable Mardi F. Pyott The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli The Honorable Paula T. Ryan The Honorable Robert H. Surles The Honorable Paul R. Wallace The Honorable William L. Witham, Jr. The Honorable Alan G. Davis
3. The initial mandate of the Council shall be as follows:
A. Problem-Solving Courts
i. To identify which of the so-called “problem-solving courts”
have demonstrated sufficient utility in terms of improving
public safety, the rehabilitation of offenders, and the efficiency
of the judicial system to warrant continuation;
ii. As to problem-solving courts that are continuing in operation,
to develop statewide standards, rules of procedure, and
outcome measures to govern their operation and measure their
performance. Such statewide standards shall ensure that the
problem-solving courts (e.g., Drug Courts, Mental Health
Courts, and Veterans’ Courts) operate based on the same
standards regardless of the county or court in which a case is
held, unless there are sound, articulated, and efficient reasons
6 for variation. These standards, rules of procedure, and outcome
measures shall be designed to enable any judge of a court, any
experienced practitioner, and key agency partners to understand
how matters in the problem-solving courts are to be handled
and what class of cases and offenders are eligible for inclusion;
iii. In identifying and developing the standards for problem-
solving courts continuing in operation, the Council shall
examine empirical evidence not only from the various
approaches used by our courts to date, but also empirical
evidence and other research and scholarship from similar
efforts in other states;
iv. In identifying and developing these standards, the Council shall
also seek input from other key partners to ensure that the
problem-solving courts operate in a manner that helps other
agency partners in doing their critical work efficiently. By way
of example, the Council shall consider how the courts should
schedule matters before the problem-solving courts in a manner
that is efficient for Probation and Parole and treatment
providers so that they can make the best use of their scarce
time; and
v. In identifying and developing these standards, the Council shall
also consider, with input from agency partners, how to ensure
7 that the problem-solving courts do not inhibit Probation and
Parole’s ability to supervise other defendants effectively or
deny other defendants who need rehabilitation resources
equitable access.
B. Overall Criminal Justice Coordination
i. The Council shall identify the most effective policy body in
which overall criminal justice policy should be addressed by
the Judiciary in cooperation with the other Branches;
ii. The Council shall identify means to consolidate, eliminate, or
revise the mandate of existing criminal justice policy bodies
that have overlapping or inconsistent mandates, and to engage
with the other Branches in a good faith effort to reduce the
number of related bodies and to focus policymaking in fewer
forums; and
iii. The Council shall also identify policies and procedures to
ensure that the Judiciary’s members on those bodies collaborate
with their judicial colleagues in advance of meetings of
whatever criminal justice bodies persist so as to ensure that the
Judicial Branch’s members on those bodies speak, to the extent
possible, for the Judiciary as a whole.
C. Juvenile Justice
i. Problem-Solving Courts
8 a. The Council shall identify which of the problem-solving
courts used in the Juvenile Justice system have
demonstrated sufficient utility in terms of improving
public safety, the rehabilitation of delinquent youth, and
the efficiency of the judicial system to warrant
continuation;
b. As to problem-solving courts that are continuing in
operation, to develop statewide standards, rules of
procedure, and outcome measures to govern their
operation and measure their performance. Such standards
shall ensure that problem-solving courts operate based on
the same standards regardless of the county in which a
case is held, unless there are sound, articulated, and
efficient reasons for variation;
c. These standards, rules of procedure, and outcome
measures shall be designed to enable any judge of a court,
any experienced practitioner, and key agency partners to
understand how matters in the problem-solving courts are
to be handled and what class of cases and offenders are
eligible for inclusion;
d. In identifying and developing the standards to govern any
courts that are continuing in operation, the Council shall
9 examine empirical evidence not only from the various
efforts in other states; and
e. In identifying and developing these standards, the Council
shall also seek input from other key partners to ensure that
the problem-solving courts operate in a manner that helps
other agency partners in doing their critical work
efficiently. By way of example, the Council shall
consider how the courts should schedule matters before
the problem-solving courts in a manner that is efficient for
the Division of Youth Rehabilitative Services (“YRS”)
and treatment providers so that they can make the best use
of their scarce time.
ii. Judicial Branch Juvenile Justice Policy Coordination
a. The Council shall identify the most effective policy body
in which overall juvenile justice policy should be
addressed in cooperation with the other Branches;
b. The Council shall identify means to consolidate,
eliminate, or revise the mandate of existing juvenile
justice policy bodies that have overlapping or inconsistent
mandates, and to engage with the other Branches in a
10 good faith effort to reduce the number of related bodies
and to focus policymaking in fewer forums; and
c. The Council shall also identify policies and procedures to
ensure that the Judiciary’s members on those bodies
collaborate with their judicial colleagues in advance of
meetings of whatever juvenile justice bodies persist so as
to ensure that the Judicial Branch’s members on those
bodies speak, to the extent possible, for the Judiciary as a
whole.
iii. Cooperation With Youth Rehabilitation Services In Optimizing The Allocation Of Placement Funds For Delinquent Youth
a. The Council shall engage with the YRS to identify means
to provide the Family Court and the YRS with better
empirical data regarding the comparative benefits and
costs of placements for delinquent youth for their use in
making placement decisions. The goal of the Council
shall be to better enable the Family Court and the YRS to
deploy the limited resources available for the placement
and supervision of delinquent youth in the manner most
likely to protect the public and to provide rehabilitation
opportunities for youth offenders.
D. Work Time Line
11 i. The Council shall present its initial findings to the Chief Justice
and Presiding Judges, the Supreme Court, and the
Administrative Office of the Courts on or before June 15, 2015.
To the extent the Council identifies issues that require more
time for resolution, the Council shall specify the time frame
best suited for resolution of those remaining issues. Likewise,
if the Council identifies issues that should be addressed earlier
because of the State legislative or budget cycle, or for other
reasons, it may make such interim reports as it deems
advisable;
ii. To facilitate the implementation of findings determined by the
Judiciary and other Branches to be worthy of adoption as
policy, the Council shall accompany its findings with
implementing draft rules of procedure, standards of operation,
administrative directives, and legislation; and
iii. The Chief Justice may also refer other criminal justice issues to
the Council for consideration.
BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. Chief Justice
12 cc: The Honorable Jack A. Markell State Court Administrator The Honorable Randy J. Holland Court Administrators The Honorable Karen L. Valihura Clerk of the Supreme Court The Honorable James T. Vaughn, Jr. Counsel to the Governor The Honorable Collins. J. Seitz, Jr. Chair Senate Judiciary Committee Members of the Judicial Conference Chair House Judiciary Committee The Honorable Matthew Denn The Honorable Brendan O’Neill